2021 (12) TMI 349 - AT - Customs

Refund of SAD - Failure to submit the additional submissions after the personal hearing as was held on 28 January, 2020 - failure to produce the copy of invoice duly stamped with the remark that no credit of additional duty of customs levied under sub-section (5) of section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - N/N. 102/2007 Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - HELD THAT - It is observed that the additional written submissions were filed by the appellant Annexure P-3 are the said submissions. It bears the receipt of the Department, i.e. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 12 February, 2020. The perusal of this document is sufficient for me to hold that after the date of personal hearing i.e. 28 January, 2020, the Additional written submissions were filed by the appellant which were received by the adjudicating authority after the aforesaid date o personal hearing i.e. on 12 February, 2020. This perusal is sufficient to hold that Commissioner (Appeals) has committed an error while noting failure on part of the appellant from submitting the additional submissions, rejection of the appeal on this ground is therefore, not sustainable. Want of proper stamping - HELD THAT - As per the condition 2 (b) of Notification No. 102 dated 14.09.2007, the refund of SAD can be sanctioned when the invoice or sale of goods are produced on record specifically indicating the non-admissibility of credit of additional duty of customs. There is no denial on part of the Department that the invoices have been produced. The only ground of not considering them is the want of proper stamping on the said invoices. The invoices as annexed on record shows that no doubt the requisite stamping specifically indicating the non-admissibility of credit of additional duty of customs is not there, but admittedly the invoices are computer generated duly acceptable in the era of digital transactions - It has also been specifically certified that the refund being claimed herein is being shown in the books of accounts/balance-sheet as amount due as refund of additional duty of Customs and same amount has not been passed on to the buyers of the sale of goods. The said Certificate of the statutory auditor of the appellant is an admissible evidence specially when there is nothing on record by the department to rebut the said documents. All department has not denied the eligibility of impugned refund claim. The otherwise objection of the Department is that instead of the amount of ₹ 2,29,821/- as claimed by the appellant, refund of amount of ₹ 1,58,685/- only is applicable to them. The said factum has also been mentioned in the Chartered Account Certificate in addition, has been acknowledged/ admitted by the appellants that amount of ₹ 2,29,821/- has wrongly been claimed by the appellant and they are entitled for the refund of SAD amounting to ₹ 1,58,685/- only - both the grounds of rejection as taken by Commissioner (Appeals) are not sustainable. Appellant is held entitled for refund claim of SAD but for an amount of ₹ 1,58,685 only - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Refund claim rejection based on non-submission of additional submissions and lack of stamped invoices.

Analysis:
The appellant filed a refund claim for &8377; 2,29,821 related to the payment of 4% SAD under Notification No.102/2007. The Department observed a discrepancy in the amount claimed and paid, leading to a rejection of the claim. The appellant provided explanations and documents, but the claim was rejected by the Original Adjudicating Authority and Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appeal to the Tribunal.

The appellant argued that the rejection was unjust as written submissions were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the invoices did not require stamping as they were computer-generated. The appellant's statutory auditors certified that the burden of SAD had not been passed on to buyers. The Department contended that the appellant failed to fulfill conditions of the Notification, specifically regarding the stamping of invoices.

The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in stating that additional submissions were not filed, as evidenced by Annexure P-3. Regarding the stamped invoices, the Tribunal noted that while the invoices lacked the required stamp, they were digitally generated and supported by the statutory auditor's certificates. The department did not dispute the eligibility of the refund claim, acknowledging the correct amount to be &8377; 1,58,685 instead of &8377; 2,29,821 as claimed.

Conclusively, the Tribunal set aside the order, ruling in favor of the appellant for a refund of &8377; 1,58,685. The rejection based on non-submission of additional submissions and lack of stamped invoices was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.